STONEMASONS’ WORK

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 670, 23 May 1929, Page 11

STONEMASONS’ WORK

STATEMENT FOR THE MEN The decision of the Arbitration Court upon the stonemasons’ dispute and the new award which has just been filed—giving the men no concessions sought upon certain machinery in dispute—was commented upon yesterday by Mr. J. Purtell who acted as advocate for the men in tho Court, and who has issued this statement on their behalf: “One of the principal matters in dispute is the use of surfacing machines of over one and a-quarter inch calibre, and this has resulted in a dispute lasting over twenty-four weeks. One of tho reasons put forward by Mr. Justice Fraser, in liis refusal to limit the calibre of these machines, was that a sleeve device has been introduced which eliminates nearly all the vibration. From this opinion we dissent emphatically. He further states that it is regrettable that in the twentieth century there should still be an element of opposition to the use of labour-saving machinery. Neither by evidence or inference was this phase introduced into either the dispute or in the evidence tendered to the Court. On the other hand, it was emphasised that the limitation of the calibre of the machine was the most important claim made by the union. QUESTION OF DISEASE “Mr. Justice Fraser, referring to the medical practitioner’s evidence—this stated that out of five men examined and X-rayed for the purpose of establishing traces of silicosis all were found to be definitely suffering from this dread complaint—said that the masons examined had all been employed outside of New Zealand, and it was impossible to say whether they had contracted the disease here or elsewhere. This was never adduced in evidence, and was not even mentioned in the Court. It is therefore hard to understand why such a statement should be made. As a matter of fact, of seven men examined all showed traces of the disease; four have resided in the country for twenty years, and one was born in New Zealand. May I also state that the men were; not picked for examination, as volunteers were asked for? “Surprise is also expressed with respect to our opposition to machines of over one and inch calibre, when, as a matter of fact, a provision has been embodied in the stonemason’s award for years limiting the size of the machine and therefore showing that the danger existed before the present dispute occurred. AUSTRALIAN CONDITIONS “Perhaps I cannot do better than quote part of the dissenting opinion given by Mr. Montieth, in which he states: — “ ‘Objection to vibration has been expressed in various States of the Commonwealth, and in fact, all over the world by the workers, because of its resultant detrimental effect, and largely increased wages have been granted. “And as conclusive proof of this, Mr. Montieth quotes the following extracts -from books of Australian awards: “ ‘Queensland, 3s an hour when working pneumatic surfacer. Victoria Wages Board: Men using hand pneumatic tools greater than 11-inch piston, £l3 5s a week New South Wales, 3s 3d an hour, with 5s 3d an hour for pneuinatic tools of over 61b. in weight. N-S-W. stonemasons also work a five-day week of forty hours.’ "£ give tho above quotation for tho purpose of showing the extreme danger of dust and vibration, and also showing conclusively that other tribunals consider the use of these machines sls being extremely dangerous from the health viewpoint. REFUSAL TO INCREASE WAGES ‘•Based on the Government Statistician’s cost of living figures, the applicant union should receive 2s 7d an hour for skilled workers, in place of 2s 41d awarded. ’ The president of the Court gives us as a reason for his refusal, that the Court has never given the &0 per cent, increase to skilled workers; that it might be detrimental to emplovers during slack periods, and that it would enable employers to pay higlier wages to more competent and idustrious workers. I had always understood that all workers were entitled to tho 60 per cent, increase. The reason adduced that the President of tiie Court has never given the increase, | is not sufficient, and seeing that stonemasons. as a. rule, receive more than i the minimum rate, what becomes of ! this reasoning, when one takes into I consideration that more 2s 4id has been paid for years. This aspect needs to bo investigated more full>. as . the amount of wages being lost by skilled and semi-skilled workers is considerable.”